There is a hell of a difference between an ECS of 2 and 4 degC or even 2 and 3 degC.

Is there? How do we know this? Even then, it’s not at all clear that mitigation strategies involving large investment as soon as possible in wind and solar are cost effective compared to adaptation. Risk management always deals in uncertainty both in the probability distribution function for the risk as well as the distribution functions of the costs of the consequences and the costs of the different strategies to adapt to or mitigate the consequences. But people like Roger Pielke, Jr., who actually know something about this and write sensible books and articles, are vilified and subject to Congressional investigation because they don’t toe the Chicken Little line.

]]>Comment on The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof by Richard Drakehttp://scienceofdoom.com/2015/02/04/the-holocaust-climate-science-and-proof/#comment-96602
Mon, 02 Mar 2015 23:57:59 +0000http://scienceofdoom.com/?p=9091#comment-96602Frank: With respect, exactly how uncertain ECS is, or how unlikely an ECS of 4°C is (where I’m likely to be very sympathetic to your view), should not really detain us on this thread. The value of ECS is far more uncertain than mainstream science having got CO2 saturation wrong and SoD’s crucial point is that the evidence for CO2 saturation, and things like it, is fair harder to grasp for the ordinary person than the evidence for the Holocaust. And thus the D-word is wholly inappropriate for people who cannot grasp the arguments for CO2 saturation, let alone much more uncertain matters.

Yet this powerful and humane argument has been disputed, not least by Florifulgurator. Getting into side arguments may divert attention from this very worthwhile ‘single issue’. There are many other SoD threads where estimation of climate sensitivity can be discussed. Here it’s a distraction.

]]>Comment on The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof by Frankhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2015/02/04/the-holocaust-climate-science-and-proof/#comment-96600
Mon, 02 Mar 2015 23:43:33 +0000http://scienceofdoom.com/?p=9091#comment-96600DeWitt: There is a hell of a difference between an ECS of 2 and 4 degC or even 2 and 3 degC. It isn’t obvious to me that science must always provide policymakers with the wide range that the IPCC has reported for the past quarter century, especially now that we have an additional quarter century of satellite observations. (It’s too bad that ARGO didn’t start with the satellite era. If we could look at the intersection – rather than the union – of TCR/ECS determined by multiple techniques we might be able to make more progress. The problem is that the IPCC’s “ensemble of opportunity” doesn’t EXCLUDE any possible future because they don’t systematically explore parameter space. So climate models can’t solve the problem; they simply create the illusion of an answer. And it may be that models with high ECS will look increasingly improbably once high sensitivity to aerosols is ruled out.
]]>Comment on The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof by Richard Drakehttp://scienceofdoom.com/2015/02/04/the-holocaust-climate-science-and-proof/#comment-96590
Mon, 02 Mar 2015 20:33:55 +0000http://scienceofdoom.com/?p=9091#comment-96590DeWitt:

The costs and benefits of various policies to mitigate or adapt to the consequences of increased levels of ghg’s have nowhere near the level of certainty of the science.

Absolutely. Not forgetting the science of feedbacks in the real atmosphere and oceans, “all other things not being equal”, is highly uncertain.

Pekka:

Discussing economics and also technology linked with the economic considerations is important and sorely lacking … I don’t think that anyone has tried to do the same with the economics of climate change as SoD has done with the physical science.

Very good point.

Given all this I was trying to tease out an important aspect of use of the D-word. Not only is it obviously more and more inappropriate as the subject matter becomes more and more uncertain. And even on something as basic as CO2 saturation SoD has shown it’s not just inapt but betrays a disgusting lack of care for the victims of one of the worst crimes in history.

Yet that’s not all. As I pointed out early on in the discussion the D-word is never qualified. Disagree with a holder of the consensus flame in one part – even in a very, very debatable part – and you are written off as if all your opinions on all parts of the climate debate are as bad as Holocaust denial.

The lack of reason involved would be laughable but for factors, by far the most important of which is respect for Holocaust survivors and descendants of its victims, which means it is no joke at all.

]]>Comment on The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof by Pekka Pirilähttp://scienceofdoom.com/2015/02/04/the-holocaust-climate-science-and-proof/#comment-96581
Mon, 02 Mar 2015 19:01:45 +0000http://scienceofdoom.com/?p=9091#comment-96581Discussing economics and also technology linked with the economic considerations is important and sorely lacking. It’s probably impossible to find in those fields as much most might agree on as it is in physical climate science. Most of what SoD has covered on this site is not really controversial, but finding as much of interest in the economics of climate change without introducing highly controversial material is probably very difficult.

That applies also to the IPCC reports. In my view full WG1 reports are mostly not controversial, some details surely, the main part not. The same is not equally true of the WG2 and WG3 reports. I would classify a major part of the most significant conclusions of these reports controversial.

I don’t think that anyone has tried to do the same with the economics of climate change as SoD has done with the physical science.

]]>Comment on The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof by DeWitt Paynehttp://scienceofdoom.com/2015/02/04/the-holocaust-climate-science-and-proof/#comment-96578
Mon, 02 Mar 2015 18:10:19 +0000http://scienceofdoom.com/?p=9091#comment-96578The sad thing is that we should be debating the economics rather than the science. The costs and benefits of various policies to mitigate or adapt to the consequences of increased levels of ghg’s have nowhere near the level of certainty of the science. Trying to shout down people who don’t think the costs of immediate, massive investments in wind and solar are justified by long term benefits by using ad hominem arguments, including the d word, is not debating, no matter how good it sounds to the peanut gallery at advocate web sites. That applies equally to both sides of the argument.
]]>Comment on The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof by Frankhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2015/02/04/the-holocaust-climate-science-and-proof/#comment-96576
Mon, 02 Mar 2015 17:53:31 +0000http://scienceofdoom.com/?p=9091#comment-96576Florifulgurator: I found the website below with historical PV electric output by date and hour. (Given that the average French nuclear power plant produces about 1 GW of electrical power, we can convert German PV output into French nucs.)

In the four or eight weeks around the summer solstice of 2014, maximum output in any 15 minute period was 26.1 GW.

During the four weeks around the winter solstice of 2014, the maximum output was 6.2 GW (24% of peak, about my estimate). On a few bad days, the maximum output peaked at 1 GW, but a 2 GW max was a typical bad day.

In the eight weeks around the winter solstice of 2014, maximum output in any 15 minute period was 10.6 GW (41% of peak, between our estimates).

The first day in 2015 that reached your 60% of peak estimate was 2/26, when the output spiked to 18.5 GW. So good days like this one are possible a month before the equinox, which surprised me.

Despite these numbers, you still can NOT replace a single French nuclear plant with German PV, because the nucs provide baseload power 24/7 (about 330 days a year). PV do not. German PV PLUS pumped storage CAN replace a nuc, but about 50% of power is lost in the storage process.

If you take Wikipedia’s figure for annual German PV output and divide by the hours in a year, the average output is only 4 GW – about 1/6 of peak output. Optimistically, only 1 GW would be lost storing power for night time use, so the entire Germany PV infrastructure (on the average) is equivalent to 3 French nucs (5% of their capacity).

Did German PV ever keep French butts warm? Even on the BEST DAY in the four weeks around the winter solstice of 2014, the entire German PV output couldn’t replace one French nuc with the help of pumped storage! On the BEST DAY in the eight weeks around the winter solstice of 2014, it could replace about ONE nuc. As spring approaches (but it is still cold), the sun is higher and more help is possible.

]]>Comment on The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof by Richard Drakehttp://scienceofdoom.com/2015/02/04/the-holocaust-climate-science-and-proof/#comment-96566
Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:53:08 +0000http://scienceofdoom.com/?p=9091#comment-96566The film was Claude Lanzmann’s epic documentary Shoah, I meant to say as I made the link.
]]>Comment on The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof by Richard Drakehttp://scienceofdoom.com/2015/02/04/the-holocaust-climate-science-and-proof/#comment-96565
Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:51:52 +0000http://scienceofdoom.com/?p=9091#comment-96565Debates on the economics of renewables may be interesting but how can they possibly strengthen the right of those on the ‘consensus’ side of any part of any climate or energy debate to imply that their opponents are as malign as Holocaust D****s in all areas (for this is always how the term is used)? On the weekend I watched the second part of the film here, all 280 minutes of it, due to expire tomorrow on the BBC iPlayer after a month since a swathe of such gruesome and sobering programs were put on in memorial of the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Anyone who denies this history commits a gross offence against human compassion and decency. As SoD has shown beyond doubt, any disagreement about climate, starting with the ‘basics’ of atmospheric physics, is of a completely different kind.

No attempt at diverting from this central point will get us anywhere.

]]>Comment on The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof by Boelshttp://scienceofdoom.com/2015/02/04/the-holocaust-climate-science-and-proof/#comment-96545
Mon, 02 Mar 2015 07:23:25 +0000http://scienceofdoom.com/?p=9091#comment-96545Florifulgurator wrote:
“Anyhow, the volatility of wind/solar disperses and averages out quite a bit when distributed over large area.”

Dream on, you have to double or triple (at least) the installed capacity.